This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama

Last Seen

Today @ 04:48 AM

Gender

Lean

Conservative

Posts

9,493

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

That is the easiest question you have ever asked. Article III of the Constitution that established the judicial branch. The judicial branch exists to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. That is the check the founders envisioned on the will of the majority. They respected it, but they knew it needed to be reasonable or it would be oppressive, so the judicial branch allows an individual to argue and defend their rights. Oddly enough, people like you who claim to value individual rights and to understand the Constitution know so little of its history. Start with Federalist Paper Number 10.

Have read #10...You should be well aware that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, lol. They were a part of the explanation and sales job of the Constitution to those individually sovereign 13 states. So, why not give this a look see as well, The Federalist #33 You will note that the Federal government was sold on the grounds that it would be limited to its enumerated powers... agreed by Hamilton that that the Federal government has bounds and should not go beyond its limited commission.

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

But in any event, you will notice...

Even with the court system its the majority that rules... when the SC makes a decision, is it the minority that wins the case, is it? With a jury its the minority that wins, huh?

Those bill of rights protections are what I just spoke of previously. They in no way assure that the minority view wins... that is simply ludicrous.

"...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr. :lA word to the unwise and terminally annoying, if I don't respond, take it personally ...and know you've been iggied.

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

Have read #10...You should be well aware that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, lol. They were a part of the explanation and sales job of the Constitution to those individually sovereign 13 states. So, why not give this a look see as well, The Federalist #33 You will note that the Federal government was sold on the grounds that it would be limited to its enumerated powers... agreed by Hamilton that that the Federal government has bounds and should not go beyond its limited commission.

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

But in any event, you will notice...

Even with the court system its the majority that rules... when the SC makes a decision, is it the minority that wins the case, is it? With a jury its the minority that wins, huh?

Those bill of rights protections are what I just spoke of previously. They in no way assure that the minority view wins... that is simply ludicrous.

Then individual rights are a joke. As an individual you have no rights. You are just a member of the mob and you hope that the mob does not turn on you. Quite a view for a conservative to take.

Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama

Last Seen

Today @ 04:48 AM

Gender

Lean

Conservative

Posts

9,493

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

You had a majority. Past tense. You lost it. Even conservative pollsters have conceded that same sex marriage is demographically a dead issue. Too many young people support it from both ends of the political spectrum. The like of the National Organization of Marriage now refer to themselves as a minority.

Yeah, give me a country that protects individual rights against the mob and feel free to call it "judicial tyranny" if you want. I call it conservative principles, which you apparently have forgotten. You do nothing but spew populist rhetoric.

Supply sources for all the trash talking you are doing here, what a joke.

Polls are not sufficiently conclusive to spout such nonsense, unless they are elections polls ... give that some critical cogitation, if you will.

"...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr. :lA word to the unwise and terminally annoying, if I don't respond, take it personally ...and know you've been iggied.

Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama

Last Seen

Today @ 04:48 AM

Gender

Lean

Conservative

Posts

9,493

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Then individual rights are a joke. As an individual you have no rights. You are just a member of the mob and you hope that the mob does not turn on you. Quite a view for a conservative to take.

That your little schtick now?

The view is of truth, my fellow citizen...if you can't handle the truth, to bad so sad...for you. I am fine with how well they, the founders, put it all together... they understood the unrestrained power of the few... and the Federal government.

"...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr. :lA word to the unwise and terminally annoying, if I don't respond, take it personally ...and know you've been iggied.

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

That your little schtick now?

The view is of truth, my fellow citizen...if you can't handle the truth, to bad so sad...for you. I am fine with how well they, the founders, put it all together... they understood the unrestrained power of the few... and the Federal government.

...Seriously?

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.” -Thomas Jefferson

"The great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” -James Madison

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

Nice incoherent rant... not much to pick from the muddled mess to discuss.

Perhaps these two.

You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us. Oh, and if your penchant is love and marriage to children, I would wait on the whole consummation of marriage thing. Prison may or may not be your bag.

And we are at least somewhat in agreement on the whole taxes thing... I agree, lets pay less taxes to this overbearing government, limit its size...yeah man...kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...

re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?

"...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr. :lA word to the unwise and terminally annoying, if I don't respond, take it personally ...and know you've been iggied.